Monica Galvan v. State, 13-14-00059-CR

Appellant Monica Galvan appealed from a Nueces County criminal conviction arising from a nighttime crash involving an object identified as a bulldozer and alleged intoxication-related driving issues.
The State asserted recklessness and related offenses under Tex. Penal Code §22.05 and Tex. Transp. Code §545.401, with arguments tied to extent of alcohol consumption and driving behavior prior to the collision.
The State relied on mixture of eyewitness testimony, forensic testimony, officer observations, and physical evidence (including alcohol odor and broken bottles) to prove recklessness.
The defense argued the State failed to prove a substantial and unjustifiable risk and that the record did not establish recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt; the defense also challenged alleged evidentiary and procedural rulings during trial.
Issues included sufficiency of the evidence to prove recklessness, a claimed fatal variance regarding what the vehicle struck, and a non-unanimous verdict challenge based on the trial court’s charge.
The court ultimately affirmed the conviction, addressing each issue through an analysis of sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, and verdict unanimity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for recklessness	Galvan-Manka contends evidence fails to prove conscious disregard of substantial risk.	State argues record supports recklessness under Williams, Trepanier, and related authorities.	Evidence supports recklessness; conviction affirmed.
Variance regarding what was struck	Indictment alleged collision with bulldozer; State relied on that description to prove offense.	Discrepancies between indictment and proof amount to material variance undermining due process.	No fatal variance; proof aligned with the charged conduct and the jury could reasonably rely on the evidence presented.
Non-unanimous verdict issue	Charge or closing argument created potential non-unanimity impermissibly.	State asserts any error was cured or harmless and not reversible.	Non-unanimity concerns did not require reversal; error, if any, was harmless.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; adequate vs. inadequate inference)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable-doubt standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (recklessness requires foreseeing risk and consciously disregarding it)
Trepanier v. State, 940 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (recklessness in driving cases; corroborates substantial/unjustified risk concept)
Rodriguez v. State, 834 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (discusses recklessness and causation in hit-and-run context)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (manner/means vs. separate offenses; proper framing of charge)
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (illustrates variance jurisprudence; distinguishs between offense elements and causation)
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for review of sufficiency and factual inferences)